Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 337–340 | Cite as

One For All, All For One? Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy

  • Karin JongsmaEmail author
  • Nitzan Rimon-Zarfaty
  • Aviad Raz
  • Silke Schicktanz
Symposium: Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy


Healthcare collectives, such as patient organizations, advocacy groups, disability organizations, professional associations, industry advocates, social movements, and health consumer organizations have been increasingly involved in healthcare policymaking. Such collectives are based on the idea that individual interests can be aggregated into collective interests by participation, deliberation, and representation. The topic of collectivity in healthcare, more specifically collective representation, has only rarely been addressed in (Western) bioethics. This symposium, entitled: “Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy” of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry draws attention to this understudied topic from a variety of disciplines, within a variety of socio-cultural contexts. We draw attention to important ethical, cultural, and social questions, and into the practices, justifications for, and implications of collective representation of patients in healthcare policy.



The guest editors collaborate on a project on collective representation by the State of Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany, grant 11,762,519,917/14 (ZN3010).


  1. Baggott, R. and K.L. Jones. 2018. Representing whom? U.K. health consumer and patients’ organizations in the policy process. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15(3).
  2. Beier, K, I. Jordan, C. Wiesemann, and S. Schicktanz. 2016. Understanding Collective Agency in Bioethics. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 19(3): 411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blease, C., and K.J. Geraghty. 2018. Are ME/CFS patient organizations “militant”? Patient protest in a medical controversy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15(3).
  4. van de Bovenkamp, H.M., and H. Vollaard. 2018. Representative claims in healthcare: Identifying the variety in patient representation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15(3).
  5. Dryzek, J.S., 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dumas, A. 1982. The three musketeers. New York: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  7. Epstein, S. 2008. Patient groups and health movements. In The handbook of science and technology studies, edited by E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, W.J. Cambridge, 499–439. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. ----. 2011. Measuring success: Scientific, institutional and cultural effects of patient advocacy. In Patients as policy actors, edited by B. Hoffman, 257–277. Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hutchison, K., W. Rogers, and V.A. Entwistle. 2017. Addressing deficits and injustices: The potential epistemic contributions of patients to research. Health Care Analysis 25(4): 386–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerhards, H., K. Jongsma, and S. Schicktanz. 2017. The relevance of different trust models for representation in patient organizations: Conceptual considerations. BMC Health Services Research 17(1): 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luce, J. 2018. Mitochondrial replacement techniques: Examining collective representation in emerging technologies governance. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15(3).
  12. Pitkin, H.F. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Pugh, J. 2018. Navigating individual and collective interests in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 44(1): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rojatz, D., J. Fischer, and H.M. van de Bovenkamp. 2018. Legislating patient representation: A comparison between Austrian and German regulations on self-help organizations as patient representatives. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15(3).
  15. Schicktanz, S. 2015. The ethical legitimacy of patient organizations’ involvement in politics and knowledge production: Epistemic justice as a conceptual basis. In The public shaping of medical research: Patient associations, health movements and biomedicine, edited by. P. Wehling, W. Viehover, and S. Koenen, 246–264. London, U.K.: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Schicktanz, S., N. Rimon-Zarfaty, A. Raz, and K. Jongsma. 2018. Patient representation and advocacy for Alzheimer disease in Germany and Israel: The relevance of stigma and disease conception. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15(3).

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Jongsma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nitzan Rimon-Zarfaty
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aviad Raz
    • 2
  • Silke Schicktanz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Medical Ethics and History of MedicineUniversity Medical CenterGoettingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyBen-Gurion University of The NegevBeershebaIsrael

Personalised recommendations